Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Learning and knowledge transfer processes in a mega-events context:
The case of the 2011 Rugby World Cup
Kim Werner a, *, 1, Geoff Dickson b, 2, Kenneth F. Hyde c, 3
a
School of Hospitality and Tourism, AUT University, PO Box 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
School of Sport and Recreation, AUT University, PO Box 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
c
Business School, AUT University, PO Box 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
b
h i g h l i g h t s
We analyse the impact of the 2011 Rugby World Cup on knowledge transfer processes.
Firm-level knowledge transfer channels were used most frequently.
The level of knowledge transfer was higher intra-regionally than inter-regionally.
A model illustrates the knowledge transfer channels used in a mega-events' context.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 November 2013
Accepted 5 November 2014
Available online 2 December 2014
The study explores the impact of the 2011 Rugby World Cup on knowledge transfer processes among
organisations in two regional tourism networks in New Zealand. The first network comprises organisations within the Auckland region (intra-regionally); the second comprises regional tourism organisations across New Zealand (inter-regionally). Interviews and documentary evidence are gathered before
and after the event, from 35 representative organisations. Findings indicate organisations in both networks acquired valuable knowledge that may facilitate the attraction and organisation of future events,
and enhance operational processes. The most common channels of knowledge transfer operated at the
firm level and included imitation/demonstration/observation, inter-firm collaboration, and document
exchange. Levels of knowledge transfer were higher intra-regionally than inter-regionally. A model is
developed that explains the knowledge transfer channels utilized in a mega-events context. The study
highlights the value of knowledge-sharing in tourism networks, and the role that a mega-event can play
in fostering knowledge-sharing.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Information and knowledge management
(IKM)
Knowledge transfer
Destination marketing
Mega-events
Inter-organisational learning
1. Introduction
Most tourism research on mega-events analyses short-term and
visitation-related impacts, rather than long-term outcomes such as
strategic development and knowledge management and transfer
(Singh & Hu, 2008). However, individuals and organisations
involved in organising mega-events at a destination accumulate an
extensive amount of tacit and explicit knowledge, such as
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ64 9 921 9999x6983.
E-mail
addresses:
kim.werner@aut.ac.nz,
k.werner@hs-osnabrueck.de
(K. Werner), geoff.dickson@aut.ac.nz (G. Dickson), ken.hyde@aut.ac.nz (K.F. Hyde).
1
Present address: Hochschule Osnabrück, University of Applied Sciences, Faculty
of Business Management and Social Sciences, PO Box 1940, 49009 Osnabrück,
Germany. Tel.: þ49 541 969 7268.
2
Tel.: þ64 9 921 9999x7851.
3
Tel.: þ64 9 921 9999x5605.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.003
0261-5177/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
knowledge in event planning and execution, and expertise in
destination marketing, that could be transferred and reapplied for
future benefits (Singh & Hu, 2008; Stokes, 2004). Knowledge
management and transfer among organisations involved in
organising mega-events have attracted little research attention
(Beesley & Chalip, 2011; Singh & Hu, 2008). The specific forms of
knowledge acquired in the context of hosting a mega-event, as well
as the transfer channels through which knowledge flows, remain
unclear. As such, one could expect the knowledge acquired in the
context of a mega-event to be different compared to knowledge
gained during normal, operational processes among tourism
companies. Singh and Hu (2008) note, “Given the huge public and
private investments involved in these large-scale events, the need
to fill this gap in the extant literature seems surprisingly obvious
and necessary” (p. 937).
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
This research explores the impact of a mega-event on knowledge transfer processes within regional tourism networks. It examines the 2011 Rugby World Cup (RWC 2011) in New Zealand (NZ)
and analyses the knowledge transfer processes between Tourism
Auckland and other public and private sector organisations. The
focal organisation for this research is Tourism Auckland (TA), a
regional tourism organisation (RTO). Consultation with TA executives identified two TA-centric networks. The intra-regional
network (AKL network) comprises organisations within the Auckland region such as the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.
The inter-regional network (RTO network) is comprised of other
RTOs throughout New Zealand. The study compares the impact of
RWC 2011 on knowledge transfer processes within these networks.
The study addresses three research questions: In a mega-events
context, 1) how do participant organisations learn?, 2) what kind of
knowledge is gained?, and 3) how is knowledge transferred between the participant organisations? The study provides a
comparative case study of two networks, both centered around the
same focal organisation. Semi-structured interviews and documents are the focal sources of evidence in this research. Conceptually, the study focuses on information and knowledge
management and knowledge transfer. In doing so, we bring
together the fields of tourism management, destination management and sport event management.
2. Theoretical background
This section explores key literature on organisational learning,
information and knowledge management (IKM) and knowledge
transfer (KT). IKM and KT research in the tourism and events
contexts are considered. The significance of networks as facilitators
of KT is discussed.
2.1. Organisational learning as a foundation for knowledge
Individuals are the key repositories of knowledge and it is
through them that organisations learn (Grant, 1997). Senge (1990)
notes: “Organizations learn only through individuals who learn.
Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But
without it no organizational learning occurs” (p. 139). Through
organisational routines, the learned individual knowledge is converted into organisational knowledge. Hence, these organisational
routines form the basis of collective learning within an organisation
(Eisenhardt & Santos, 2002). However, a learning culture must be
embedded within the organisation in order to achieve successful
learning. This culture encourages learning as a way to grow the
organisation's capacity (Senge, 1990). In this context, the literature
uses the term learning organisation, which refers to an “organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and at transferring knowledge,
and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights” (Garvin, 1993, p. 80).
2.2. Information and knowledge management
The concept of knowledge is fragmented, with no universallyaccepted definition (Assundani, 2005; Nonaka, 1994). This article
utilises the definition from Beesley and Chalip (2011), who define
knowledge as “information with meaning that exists within the
individual” (p. 328). Knowledge is different from data and information. Data are unrelated, not yet interpreted facts (Brauner &
Becker, 2006). When data are used in the context of relevance for
a certain system, they become information (Schlegelmilch & Penz,
2002; Willke, 1998). Thus, information is data used “in a context to
which meaning has been attributed” (Standards Australia
International, 2003, p. 1). Knowledge accumulates within
175
individuals and is only shared if the individual is willing to do so
(Beesley & Chalip, 2011). Knowledge is a company's most valuable
resource (Scott & Laws, 2006) and an essential source of lasting
competitive advantage (Nonaka, 1991).
Knowledge management (KM) “involves the design, review and
implementation of both social and technological processes to
improve the application of knowledge” (Standards Australia
International, 2003, p. 1). An organisation needs to ensure that its
‘data’ becomes ‘information’ and then ‘knowledge’ (Halbwirth &
Toohey, 2001). Specific KM activities focus on acquiring, storing
and using knowledge for problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision making (Geisler & Wickramasinghe,
2009). Information and Knowledge Management (IKM) describes
the combined application of both information and knowledge
(Skyrme, 2011). Information facilitates the development of
knowledge, which then creates more information, which in turn
deepens knowledge (Swan, Langford, Watson, & Varey, 2000).
There is no correct way to implement IKM. Rather, best practice
must reflect the organisation, and its cultural, national, regulatory,
political and legislative environments (Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001).
2.3. The knowledge creation process
Within the (I)KM literature, two types of knowledge are usually
defined: tacit knowledge (i.e., know how) and explicit knowledge (i.e.,
know what) (Polanyi, 1967). Explicit knowledge is codifiable, formal,
and systematic (Scott & Laws, 2006); it can be translated into words
or symbols, and thus be transformed into books or manuals (Inkpen,
1996). In contrast, tacit knowledge is more difficult to translate and to
explain to outsiders. Tacit knowledge can sometimes only be learned
through practice and direct immersion with the person who possesses it (Lei, Slocum, & Pitts, 1997). Knowledge is created and
transferred in a dynamic interaction between four different modes
of knowledge conversion (Nonaka, 1991, 1994, 1996; Nonaka,
Toyama, & Konno, 2000). Socialisation is the conversion of new
tacit knowledge into the existing base of tacit knowledge. Externalisation is the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge through verbalisation. Combination refers to the process of
converting explicit knowledge into even more systematic and
complex forms of explicit knowledge. Finally, internalisation occurs
when explicit knowledge is converted into tacit knowledge.
2.4. Knowledge transfer
There is no single best method for KT (Awad & Ghaziri, 2004).
KT depends on many different factors, such as knowledge type and
transfer barriers. KT can be informal, spontaneous and unstructured. However, due to its value, KT is often purposeful. KT can
occur through peer-to-peer exchanges, interactive knowledge
sharing, team learning, electronic discussion spaces, inter-firm
linkages and partnerships, knowledge-creating bodies (e.g., universities and government agencies), and exchanges of work-related
gossip (Bathelt, Malmberg, & Maskell, 2004; Scott, Baggio, &
Cooper, 2008). The core concept is to ensure the effective application of intellectual capital within the company or network to achieve certain objectives. However, for effective transfer to occur
within a network, all partners must participate, as each partner
controls access to certain knowledge (Scott et al., 2008). Knowledge
that is expressed becomes information to others. For knowledge to
be successfully transferred, receivers must apply thought or
reasoning to it and incorporate it into their individual knowledge
networks (Beesley & Chalip, 2011). The degree to which it has been
transferred largely depends on the communication processes
(Davila, Epstein, & Shelton, 2006). Knowledge may be transferred
176
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
but it is not successfully adopted unless it leads to the generation of
new ideas and concepts (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).
processes underlying KT in tourism and destination marketing
(Cooper, 2006; Hjalager, 2002; Scott et al., 2008).
2.5. Knowledge management and knowledge transfer in the
tourism context
2.6. Knowledge management and knowledge transfer in the events
context
Many organisations contribute to providing a quality tourism
experience (Waesche, Dickson, & Woll, 2013). Hence, there is a
need for effective collaboration and KT within and between tourism
organisations. However, KM and KT research in tourism contexts is
disproportionately small (Clark & Scott, 2006; Scott et al., 2008).
Shaw and Williams (2009) emphasise the need for a “better understanding of how we can conceptualise and theorise knowledge
transfer in tourism” (p. 333). In this context, KM is a valuable instrument to respond to the fast-changing tourism industry with its
increasing uncertainty, shorter product life cycles, rapidly developing technologies, and increased regulatory constraints (Scott &
Laws, 2006). Knowledge is a driver of innovation, productivity
and competitiveness in tourism (Shaw & Williams, 2009). A
knowledge base is a necessity for tourism organisations to be
competitive (Cooper, 2006). The tourism industry is dominated by
small and medium-sized businesses, characterised by activity
fragmentation and poor human resource practices, which acts a
barrier to knowledge transfer and acquisition (Cooper, 2006).
Scholars have recently started to focus on KT models and KT
channels utilised among tourism organisations. The model of
absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) has received particular
attention by tourism scholars (Awad & Ghaziri, 2004; Cooper, 2006;
Scott et al., 2008). Absorptive capacity is an organisation's ability to:
(1) understand new external knowledge; (2) assimilate it; and (3)
apply it to commercial ends (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Hjalager (2002) suggests four different channels for KT in
tourism: the trade system (e.g., market surveys, trade associations);
the technological system (e.g., purchases or leases of technology);
the infrastructural system (e.g., public authorities acting as
‘knowledge transfer agents’); and the regulation system (e.g., safety
control, labour regulations). In contrast, Hall and Williams (2008)
identify six KT channels in tourism. Labour mobility refers to
knowledge transferred through the physical movement of workers,
i.e., through people relocating within a firm or across firms. Interfirm exchange includes vertical and horizontal collaboration with
suppliers, intermediaries or other tourism businesses. Learning by
imitation/demonstration/observation can be either planned or
unplanned. Knowledge brokers include influential individuals with
a large reservoir of knowledge they can transfer. Learning regions
refer to territorial spaces characterised by proximity, trust and
shared values, providing an environment for collective learning.
Finally, communities of practice are groups of individuals bound
through shared meanings and understandings.
Weidenfeld, Williams, and Butler (2010) combined four of the six
channels of KT suggested by Hall and Williams (2008) (labour
mobility, knowledge brokers, imitation/demonstration/observation,
inter-firm exchanges) and the four systems proposed by Hjalager
(2002) (trade, technological, infrastructural, regulation). In total,
eight channels of KT are suggested that operate at the individual
level, the firm level, and as systems. Weidenfeld et al.'s model (see
Fig. 1) proposes that both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge
are absorbed through internal sources (e.g., staff or senior managers)
and external sources (e.g., suppliers). Knowledge is then transferred
through the channels/mechanisms and added to the existing
knowledge stocks, creating a reservoir of tacit and explicit knowledge among staff. It can also potentially be transformed and adapted
as innovations. However, this depends on the absorptive and adaptive capacities of the firm (Weidenfeld et al., 2010). Despite these
efforts, there is a need to further improve our understanding of the
There is a considerable debate around the impacts of megaevents on the host community (Balduck, Maes, & Buelens, 2011;
Jones, 2001; Ohmann, Jones, & Wilkes, 2006). While a number of
studies point to the negative impacts (e.g., traffic congestion,
excessive noise, increased pollution, inflated prices; Allen, O'Toole,
Harris, & McDonnell, 2011), previous research has also demonstrated that events can provide benefits to the host community
such as increased publicity, a more prominent position in the
tourism market and hence a competitive advantage (Buhalis, 2000;
Morse, 2001; O'Brien, 2006). However, effective coordination between the organising committee (a temporary organisation) and
the destination marketing organisation (not of temporary nature) is
essential (Singh & Hu, 2008). Successful destination marketing in
the events context thus requires the integration of strategies and
operations from two different knowledge domains: sport-event
planning and destination marketing. These two domains need to
be coordinated and aligned carefully. A strategic alignment of these
two domains provides significant knowledge benefits for destinations to attract and deliver future events. Overall, mega-events can
be viewed as sources for precious knowledge that “should be
transferred to and re-used by future organizing committees and
destination organizations” (Singh & Hu, 2008, p. 937).
The organisers of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games placed high
emphasis on IKM (Toohey & Halbwirth, 2001). In June 1998, two
years before the start of the Games, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) introduced the internal
Sydney 2000 Games Information System. The system provided a
“shared environment for the creation and dissemination of information and knowledge that promoted “the sharing and linking of
existing data” (Toohey & Halbwirth, 2001, p. 7). Over the following
two years towards the event, SOCOG's KM grew and developed
from a mere information management approach into a wider
knowledge management role. As per their agreement with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), SOCOG shared a written
manual of experiences with the organising committees in both Salt
Lake City and Athens. Good KM systems thus represent a beneficial
and essential tool to transfer know-how from one Olympic Games
to the next (Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001; Toohey & Halbwirth, 2001).
However, the existence of a KM system is not sufficient to ensure
the uptake of mega-events know-how (Beesley & Chalip, 2011). KT
is a far more complex task than the mere sharing of information,
technology, and techniques (e.g., via simple presentations from one
organiser to the next one). Rather, successful KT requires a sound
understanding of the social, cultural, political, and historical
context of the host destination and the knowledge “needs to be
honed refined, and adapted to be made relevant in the context to
which it is to be transferred” (Beesley & Chalip, 2011, p. 341).
This short review of work within the events field points to a
mere handful of studies in which attempts have been made to
explore empirically some of the key concepts on KM and KT surrounding mega-events. Additional research on KM and KT will
enhance understanding of how to better leverage events in the
future (Singh & Hu, 2008; Stokes, 2004).
2.7. Network approaches to knowledge management and transfer
Network analyses facilitate effective KT strategies (Inkpen &
Tsang, 2005; Scott et al., 2008; Shaw & Williams, 2009). Networks allow the sharing and transfer of knowledge among
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
177
Fig. 1. Sources, channels with mechanisms and outcomes of knowledge transfers between tourist attractions.
Note. From “Knowledge transfer and innovation among attractions” by A. Weidenfeld, A. M. Williams and R. W. Butler, 2010, Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), p. 607. Copyright 2009
by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.
organisations, provide sources of knowledge for innovation, and
facilitate business performance improvement (McLeod, Vaughan, &
Edwards, 2010). Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, and Tsai (2004) highlight that “interorganizational networks offer a variety of knowledge, innovation, performance, and survival benefits” (p. 807).
Other scholars argue that the core function of networks is to
facilitate organisational learning (e.g., Dredge, 2006; Gibson, Lynch,
& Morrison, 2005; McLeod et al., 2010; Pavlovich, 2003).
Scholars in the tourism and destination marketing field also
acknowledge the use of network analysis to analyse KT processes
among stakeholders (e.g., Scott et al., 2008; Shaw & Williams,
2009). Network analysis assists in identifying barriers to knowledge acquisition (e.g., weak or broken links) and understanding the
key knowledge gaps at the destination (Scott et al., 2008). Shaw and
Williams (2009) state:
Networks are of particular importance in the study of knowledge transfers in tourism. Of particular note is the issue of the
efficiency of networks in knowledge transfer (and innovation) in
tourism destinations. (pp. 329e330)
Recent studies of KT and knowledge diffusion within tourism
and destination marketing networks are using quantitative
methods of network science, computer simulations and network
analysis software (e.g., UCINET) to measure network constructs.
These constructs include density, centrality, structural holes and
brokerage (e.g., Baggio & Antonioli Corigliano, 2010; Baggio, Scott,
& Cooper, 2010; da Fontoura Costa & Baggio, 2009; McLeod et al.,
2010). These preceding arguments demonstrate the value of using
network analysis to investigate KM and KT processes among organisations (McLeod et al., 2010). However, theory and research on
KM and KT using network analysis is still limited in both the
tourism and events literature.
2.8. Event networks
For a successful event, a destination needs to integrate a variety
of organisations from different sectors, such as tourism, sports and
events. Each organisation makes a contribution towards producing
a successful event (Ziakas & Costa, 2010). The network established
by a destination marketing organisation (DMO) to organise an
event for the destination thus draws on existing relationships but
also includes a variety of both new relationships (e.g., event organisers) as well as relationships with companies to which limited
pre-event connections existed. This provides valuable new
(knowledge) opportunities as companies from different industries
178
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
and sectors operate under different knowledge, regulatory, and
technology regimes, and can mobilise their specific constellation of
regimes (Hjalager et al., 2008). The mega-event thus changes the
DMO's existing tourism network which shifts from a mere tourism
domain to a network incorporating partners from the tourism,
events and sports domains (see Fig. 2). Due to the often strict
deadlines of an event this process requires a fast and efficient
implementation.
In addition, a mega-event brings into the destination a large
amount of new knowledge from international corporations,
sporting bodies and international sponsors, as well as new
personnel with international events experience. The local DMO and
organisations within the destination (such as airlines, hotels and
tour operators) draw on these international knowledge connections; this subsequently affects the configuration of the local
knowledge networks and the diffusion of innovations (Weidenfeld
& Hall, 2014).
3. Research context: the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New
Zealand
The Rugby World Cup is a quadrennial event owned by the International Rugby Board. The 2011 Rugby World Cup was the
biggest event ever hosted in New Zealand. The 48 matches between
the 20 participating teams were held in 11 cities in 12 different
stadia around the country. New Zealand was granted the right to
host RWC 2011 on 17 November 2005, in Dublin, Ireland. The bid to
host the event was built around the slogan of New Zealand's ‘Stadium of Four Million’, referring to New Zealand's population of
approximately 4 million (RNZ 2011, 2008). Four key themes
emerged from the government's objectives for the tournament
(New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,
2012): (a) demonstrate major event capability to the world; (b)
provide a stimulus to the New Zealand economy in 2010 and 2011;
(c) promote Brand New Zealand to the world to achieve tourism
and business benefits; and (d) build social cohesion by engaging
New Zealanders in the event. Rugby New Zealand 2011 (RNZ 2011)
was the company responsible for delivering the RWC 2011. RNZ
2011 was a joint venture between the New Zealand government
and the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU).
Documents released by the organisers and the government
both pre- and post-event generally painted a very positive picture
of the event and its benefits e which often is the case with large-
Fig. 2. Shift from a tourism domain to a network incorporating tourism, events and
sport partners.
scale events (Higham, 1999; Jones, 2001). In particular economic
benefits (e.g., increase in economic activity, high tax revenues)
and a boost for the tourism industry were heavily promoted as
successful outcomes (RNZ 2011, 2008). Official figures released
post-event showed that RWC 2011 attracted 133,200 visitors between July and October 2011, who spent approximately NZ$390
million (Statistics New Zealand, 2011). The event thus exceeded
the forecast visitor arrivals of between 60,000 and 95,000
(International Rugby Board, 2012; Tourism New Zealand, 2011).
Also, the financial loss from the event (NZ$31.3 million) was NZ$8
million lower than forecast (International Rugby Board, 2012).
New Zealand's tourism operators, however, reported mixed perceptions about the impact of RWC 2011 on their businesses and
described the event as “very patchy” (ONE News, 2011, October
21), with operators in the main game centres benefiting the most.
Normal domestic and corporate travel patterns were also highly
disrupted through RWC 2011, with most New Zealanders not
travelling around the country, and a decline in corporate and
business travel over the Cup period (Tourism Industry Association
New Zealand, 2012). Thus, while organisers and the government
spoke positively of the impacts of RWC 2011, the benefits for the
tourism industry are open to debate.
4. Methodology and methods
This research adopts the interpretive paradigm informed by
qualitative methods d an approach “that portrays a world in which
reality is socially constructed, complex and ever changing”
(Schulenkorf, 2010, p. 88). The researchers sought meaningful
insight and understanding of the KT processes among the organisations involved in both networks and how they evolved as a result
of RWC 2011.
4.1. Focal organisation and network specification
A common approach to network studies is specification of a
focal organisation (Rowley, 1997). The focal organisation for this
study is TA. TA is the largest of New Zealand's 29 RTOs. TA is ideally
suited to be the focal organisation for a number of reasons: 1)
Auckland hosted 15 RWC 2011 matches; 2) Auckland is New Zealand's largest city accounting for more than 30% of the population
(Statistics New Zealand, 2012); 3) Auckland is a key element of the
New Zealand tourism product.
After determining TA as the focal organisation, the process then
identified TA's event network. To do this, two TA senior executives
were asked to determine the relevant network partners including
(a) TA's ‘business as usual’ relationships, (b) new relationships
established for RWC 2011 as well as (c) partners with whom very
limited pre-event connections existed. The final network determined by the two executives (independently from one another)
could further be divided into two sub-networks. The intra-regional
network (AKL network) is comprised of organisations from the
Auckland region, including central government organisations with
an Auckland office or agent. The inter-regional network (RTO
network) is comprised of RTOs throughout New Zealand. Both
networks contained traditional, long-term partners but also companies with which TA had rarely or infrequently connected in the
past and which (in the case of the AKL network) incorporated
companies from the tourism, events and sport sectors. The member
organisations of each network are summarised in Table 1 below.
Given the focus on two different regional networks, an
embedded multiple-case study design with two cases was adopted
(Yin, 2009). Each network (AKL and RTO network) represents a
case.
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
Table 1
Networks Members in the AKL and RTO network.
Network members
Local airport
Local business association 1
AKL
RTO
Local business association 2
Local council
Local economic development
agency
Local golf club
Motel
NZ's international business
development agency
NZ ministry 1 (local Auckland office)
NZ ministry 2 (local Auckland office)
NZ's national Maori tourism body
NZ's national tourism organisation
(NTO)
Local hospitality association
Tour operator 1
Local rugby union
Tour operator 2
Local transport authority
Transport operator
Match venue
Vineyard
11 regional tourism organisations (RTOs)
4.2. Participants
CEOs and senior staff from the participating organisations (see
Table 1) were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews.
Only employees who were best suited to provide a meaningful and
in-depth insight into the topic area were interviewed (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005), and so positions such as chief executive officer
(CEO), general manager (GM), marketing manager or events manager were selected. To enhance research dependability, four other
participants from outside the networks were also interviewed.
These participants were the Chair of the Auckland Coordination
Group for RWC 2011 (ACG), the Executive Officer of Regional
Tourism Organisations New Zealand (RTONZ) and two members of
the TA senior executive. The ACG coordinated the planning and
delivery of RWC 2011 in Auckland across all Auckland Council
agencies with RWC 2011 deliverables. RTONZ represents the collective interests of the 29 RTOs in NZ. All participants generally held
favourable views towards hosting RWC 2011 in New Zealand,
however, they also demonstrated a healthy scepticism concerning
any potential benefits for their organisations as well as for New
Zealand as a whole.
4.3. Data collection methods
This research used two of the six key sources of evidence recommended for case study research (Yin, 2009): interviews and
documentation.
4.3.1. Semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured interviews provide the appropriate balance
between consistency and flexibility (Patton, 2002). Sixty-nine
semi-structured interviews were conducted either face-to-face or
via telephone. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed
verbatim. All transcriptions were sent to the interviewees for
verification, to make sure the transcription was a true and accurate
reflection of what had been said. This process also minimised the
likelihood of researcher-imposed bias (Halcomb & Davidson, 2006;
Patton, 2002). Examples of the questions include: ‘How did you
learn in the RWC 2011 context?’; ‘What kind of knowledge was
transferred among organisations in Auckland/among the RTOs for
RWC 2011?’; and ‘How do you think knowledge was transferred
among the organisations?’ An overview on all questions used in
both the pre- and post-event interviews is included in the
Appendix.
4.3.2. Documentation review
Reports and internal records, email communication, formal
studies and evaluations, agendas and minutes of meetings, bid
179
documents, websites, and newspaper and online articles were
analysed. In addition, the researchers attended a number of industry updates, public presentations and seminars related to RWC
2011. In total, over 100 newspaper and online articles, 73 emails
among the ACG members, 52 websites, 56 pages of interview and
seminar notes and 39 reports, impact studies and strategic documents with over 2000 pages were reviewed.
4.3.3. Timeline of data collection
The data collection for the research was divided into two phases: pre-event (March 2009eAugust 2011) and post-event
(November 2011eFebruary 2012). With the start of the research
in March 2009, a constant, extensive analysis of websites, newspaper and online articles, administrative documents, agendas of
meetings, etc. was carried out. This document review covered the
entire period of the study's data gathering until February 2012. The
pre-event interviews were conducted between August 2010 and
June 2011. The post-event interviews involved the same interviewees (in order to reflect on earlier thoughts and opinions and
to evaluate the event from KT perspectives) and were conducted
between November 2011 and February 2012.
4.4. Data analysis
Thematic analysis underpinned the qualitative data analysis
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). A number of advantages of using this
method are evident in the literature: it is very flexible, can summarise the key features of a large body of data, and may also
generate unanticipated insight into the topic. In addition, thematic
analysis is a method that is easily accessible to the general public, is
very useful when having participants as collaborators, and can
highlight similarities and differences across the data set (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). ATLAS.ti 6.2 d software for qualitative data analysis, management and model building d was used to systematically code, theme, and analyse the data (cf. Parent, Rouillard, &
Leopkey, 2011). The data analysis process followed the step-bystep guide for thematic analysis as developed by Braun and
Clarke (2006). Continuous interaction with the data, a thorough
process of thematic analysis, the use of ATLAS.ti 6.2 software, and
constant cross-checking of codes and themes among the three researchers added salience and depth to the process and enhanced
the trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
5. Results
This section presents the main findings. It addresses the three
research questions: In a mega-events context, 1) how do participant organisations learn?; 2) what kind of knowledge is gained?;
and 3) how is knowledge transferred between the participant
organisations?
5.1. Learning mechanisms and opportunities in the RWC 2011
context
This section relates to research question 1 and focuses on the
learning mechanisms and opportunities in the RWC 2011 context. It
particularly focuses on how the participants learned.
5.1.1. RWC 2011 was an important learning opportunity
Participants from both networks recognised RWC 2011 as an
important learning opportunity. One interviewee from the AKL
network noted: “I think those that are involved will learn a lot out
of it and the country will be better off.” Another participant
explained, “… there is a constant stream of learning …. And the
specialists in my team will learn from other specialists in other
180
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
organisations. And I will learn from them and they will learn from
me.” Similarly, the RTOs highlighted the positive role of RWC 2011
as a learning opportunity. One CEO noted: “RWC 2011 will be a
starting point to learn for the future and be prepared.”
5.1.2. Learning mechanisms
Five learning mechanisms were evident amongst participants in
both networks. All ways of learning are discussed below.
Learning by doing. The most popular way of learning in the RWC
2011 context was ‘learning by doing’. One interviewee (AKL
network) remarked that people learned “by participating, so
learning by doing.” An RTO participant explained, “I think mainly it
is learning by doing, to be honest. Working with different parties,
and it has been a bit of a learn-as-you-go process.”
Learning through exchange. Through meetings, email exchanges
and telephone conversations the participants exchanged ideas and
experiences. One AKL interviewee stated, “we have transferred a lot
of knowledge on mega-events in discussions and sitting around
tables and meetings.” Another participant remarked, “every time
we meet I learn something …. And hopefully, I like to think that it is
also a dual carriageway, so in both directions.” One RTO spoke
about a mutual process of giving and taking: “it's about ‘I show you
mine if you show me yours’; so it is about sharing.” It is important
to note that not all information and knowledge was shared among
the RTOs d the interviews demonstrate that information sharing
among the RTOs was selective.
Learning from other events. The participants in the AKL network
described how they analysed other mega and major events. This
included previous events in New Zealand (e.g., the 2005 British and
Irish Lions Tour, America's Cup 2000 and 2003) and offshore events.
One participant referred to the 2005 Lions Tour: “there was a
debriefing exercise after the event …. Those learnings were taken
into account for RWC 2011.” Two organisations from the AKL
network (plus Tourism Auckland) were also part of an extensive
knowledge acquisition process prior to the event. This process
included extensive desktop research on mega-events in other cities
and countries, a visit to RWC 2007 in France and participation in the
‘Play of Cities forum’ (a forum in which the major host cities for
RWC 2011 d Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch d and RNZ
2011 came together to learn from each other). The RTOs shared
similar views. One RTO highlighted that “the America's Cup and
Lions Tour have been quite helpful to understand what RWC 2011
might be about.”
Learning through prohibitions. Participants from both networks
referred to the Major Events Management Act 2007 (MEMA). The
MEMA prohibits unauthorised association between a major event
and a brand, good or service (New Zealand Major Events, 2012).
One participant from the AKL network described that MEMA “…
was indoctrinated in us, that we had to watch this and watch our
businesses so nobody got fined and all of that.”
Learning from event experts. In the AKL network, three organisations hired specialist staff with prior mega-events experience.
The other participants of the AKL network frequently referred to
these ‘event experts’ and their knowledge. One participant
explained, “they have brought people over from Australia who have
got that mega-event experience and they are transferring their
skills and knowledge to those of us in Auckland who didn't have it,
and that is really valuable.” Experienced experts were not as
prevalent in the RTO network. Only two RTOs hired international
event experts due to limited financial resources.
5.1.3. The event provided limited learning opportunities in the
tourism field
Participants from both networks highlighted that ‘RWC 2011
tourists’ were similar to ‘normal tourists’. Therefore, the event did
not require major changes to the routine processes for tourism
businesses. Rather, the high season was duplicated. Hence, the
learning opportunities in the tourism field were limited. One of TA's
participants explained, “… the learning wasn't so much for the
tourism industry. … it's not a difficult event in terms of the visitor
nights and arrivals d they are very easily managed by the tourism
industry.” The RTOs shared similar views. In a post-event interview
a RTO CEO said that knowledge gained “wasn't so much in the
tourism side …. It was not different in kind from anything else we
would do; perhaps a little different in degree …; it was business as
usual really.”
5.2. Forms of knowledge acquired in the RWC 2011 context
This section relates to research question 2 and focuses on the
forms of knowledge acquired through RWC 2011.
5.2.1. RWC 2011 helped organisations acquire new experiences
All experiences acquired by the organisations in the RWC 2011
context are outlined below.
Learning about other organisations. In the AKL network, the
participants learned a lot about other organisations within the region. One interviewee emphasised that knowledge was gained:
… especially from some of the other stakeholders … like the
holiday parks, with which we've got a relationship anyway, and
maybe some of the hoteliers so we can see what the hotel sector
is doing. There's then also the public sector as well that is
involved in the organisation of RWC 2011, so there's building
relationships with them, but also learning about what issues
they have.
Another interviewee noted:
… as a result of collaboration we've become better informed
about each other's organisations, for example about the role of
the [Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs]. I've become more aware
about the role of Tourism Auckland, the Ministry of Economic
Development, etc.
The RTOs indicated that they particularly learned about their
stakeholders and other partners within their region. This included
their roles, strategies and goals for RWC 2011. In this context, one
RTO noted:
We are also learning about the way the councils function, and
what different department of the council does what etc.; so we
are learning a lot more about how those organisations and departments work.
One RTO noted that their learning was “more in our local relationships, so with [our] City Council, [our] Rugby Union, [our
economic development agency], etcetera.”
Operational experiences for ‘business as usual’. The AKL-network
interviewees highlighted the opportunity to gain operational experiences relevant to their ‘business as usual’. One participant
noted the potential to “apply some of those [pricing] principles to
other convoy groups and large groups that come through on a
regular summer.”
Learning about the distinctive features of an event. In the AKL
network, RWC 2011 was frequently compared to the 2005 British
and Irish Lions Series. However, all participants recognised that
RWC 2011 was a much bigger event, which made comparisons
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
difficult. The Chair of the ACG (who had a high level of prior international mega-events experience) explained:
I have learnt heaps in the last four years of being here. Because
every city operates quite differently in the way they go about
their business. And certainly from a NZ perspective the cultural
element, the innovation elements are certainly different. It is a
totally different scale.
Hence, most participants highlighted the difficulty in comparing
events. They referred to the unique characteristics of every event
which creates difficulty in correctly utilising potential ‘learnings’
from one event to the other. One interviewee noted:
Every event from my perspective is different. Everybody travels
differently, everybody moves differently. … every event we had,
the 15 [matches] here in Auckland …, every event was different.
Learning about social benefits. The participants in the AKL
network also learned that a mega-event's impact extends beyond
financial impacts. Social benefits, such as increased community
pride and lower crime rates, were specifically mentioned. One CEO
also referred to the increased international profile of NZ through
RWC 2011. Beyond the immediate economic impact, he said “there
were greater benefits, long term; in terms of profiling the country.”
Importance of communication. Several participants in the AKL
network also emphasised an increased understanding of the
importance of good communication. Asked about the most
important experience they had during RWC 2011, one CEO stated,
“the importance … of communication with all the agencies that are
involved in delivery of an event of that scale.”
Experiences with politics. In the RTO network, the participants
referred to an increased level of competency in politics. One RTO
emphasised the importance when noting: “Event management of
this scale, managing expectations of the industry as well, that's
quite important. There is quite a strong political and stakeholder
role in this; because it is seen as such a big deal.”
5.2.2. RWC 2011 helped organisations acquire new skills
Through their involvement in the event, the participants acquired a wide set of new skills that did not exist prior to the event.
These are outlined below.
Event management skills. Participants from both networks
emphasised the acquisition of event management skills. One CEO
(AKL network) confirmed, “there were a lot of learnings … from an
event management sort of perspective.” The new event management skills included sponsorship, bidding for events and legislation. The Chair of the ACG referred to a recent feasibility study
carried out to determine whether Auckland should host the 2018
Commonwealth Games and explained: “… if Auckland would have
been asked to do this before RWC 2011 came along, I doubt that
they would have actually been able to do it.” Similarly, the RTOs
emphasised the field of event management. Participants now felt
more capable of coping with unreliable forecasts and statistics,
large budgets; and high stakeholder expectations.
Relationship-building and collaboration skills. Participants in both
networks also acquired relationship-building and collaboration
skills. Participants regularly attended meetings, interacted closely,
and created a variety of new relationships. One AKL network
participant stated, “there is lots of learning taking place in relationship building.” One RTO noted: “working collaboratively has
improved as a skill and inter-relationship building.”
Communication skills. Participants from the AKL network
referred to improved communication skills. There was a
181
requirement for high quality communication with each other, their
stakeholders, the public and the media.
Project management skills. Several AKL-network participants
referred to improved project management skills. They spoke of an
enhanced ability to deliver projects involving complex, stakeholder
relationships under considerable time pressure. One interviewee
noted their newfound ability to “project-manage something
carefully.”
Negotiation skills. Participants in the AKL network made reference to improved negotiation skills. This refers to an ability to
better negotiate a compromise but also to operational negotiations.
One participant noted: “At the operational side of things we've
learned a lot about negotiating, prices for venues, etcetera.”
Marketing skills. In the RTO network, several participants
mentioned “general marketing skills.” One CEO stated: “[RWC
2011] was a biggie, in the areas that we normally wouldn't have
done. Particularly in terms of our appreciation of online marketing;
we certainly learnt a lot about that.”
5.2.3. Both tacit and explicit knowledge was acquired
In both the AKL and RTO networks, tacit knowledge (e.g., employees sharing and exchanging ideas, observing and imitating)
and explicit knowledge (e.g., acquired through manuals and documents) were transferred. Also, all four modes of knowledge conversion as defined by Nonaka (1994) were evident in both
networks. 1. Tacit-to-tacit (socialisation): i.e., face-to-face conversations and meetings among the businesses in the Auckland region
and among the RTOs. 2. Tacit-to-explicit (externalisation): i.e.,
email contacts, creation of documents and manuals, workshops for
employees and stakeholders. 3. Explicit-to-explicit (combination)
i.e., circulation of documents. 4. Explicit-to-tacit transfer (internalisation): reading written documents (e.g., generic mega-events
manuals and templates) or from learning by doing.
5.2.4. Sources for new knowledge included external and internal
sources
Both external and internal sources provided knowledge. In the
AKL network, external sources included the IRB and RNZ 2011,
other organisations in the Auckland region as well as other cities
(e.g., Sydney, Melbourne) and countries (e.g., France) with megaevent experience. Internal sources included staff within the organisations, especially those employees with prior (mega-) events
experience.
In the RTO network, the RTOs referred to other within-region
stakeholders as important external knowledge sources. One RTO
emphasised how much they learned from their participation in the
regional coordination group for RWC 2011. He stated, “I sit on a
steering committee. … So I am fortunate to get a lot of that information even though some of it doesn't directly involve me. So in
terms of gaining a much wider knowledge it has been great.”
Interestingly, the RTOs rarely referred to each other as external
knowledge sources. Internal sources comprised staff members
within the RTO organisations. Most RTOs had one or more staff
members with significant RWC 2011 involvement. These members
passed on knowledge and information to the remaining staff.
5.3. Knowledge transfer channels
The section addresses the third research question: How was
knowledge transferred between the organisations involved?
5.3.1. Firm-level KT channels predominated
As outlined earlier, imitation/demonstration/observation and
inter-firm exchanges were important learning mechanisms. One
interviewee in the AKL network indicated that the KT happened by
182
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
“observing how [others] are doing it.” Another participant
explained that KT within the organisation happened “… by
coaching …. So it is face-to-face transfer.” And a RTO summarised
the KT process as follows:
It is being able to pick up the phone to [name of a TA staff
member] in Auckland and saying, ‘What do you think about
that? What are you guys doing?’ and then she asks ‘What are
you doing?’ and we tell them. It is that sort of exchange.
5.3.2. Individual level KT channels were more evident in the AKL
network
As described earlier, three AKL-network organisations hired
staff with prior mega-event experience. These people acted as
knowledge brokers, defined by Weidenfeld et al. (2010) as “influential individuals who … play a key role in knowledge transfer” (p.
608). Asked how knowledge was transferred, one participant
explained: “through the people with mega-event experience that
have come over from overseas, by observing how they are doing it.”
Thus, labour mobility was an important KT channel. In contrast to
the AKL network, KT channels at the individual level were not
mentioned by the RTO network participants. While several international event experts were hired specifically for RWC 2011 by
organisations in the Auckland region (e.g., TA, Auckland Council),
only two RTOs employed additional staff with prior mega-events
experiences.
5.3.3. The infrastructural system and the regulation system were
the most important KT systems
The systems for KT mentioned by the AKL network organisations included the infrastructural system, the regulation system
and the trade system. In contrast, the RTO referred to all four systems (infrastructural, trade, regulation and technological system);
however, technological and trade systems appear less relevant.
Infrastructural system. The infrastructural system was frequently
referred to in the interviews. Auckland Council and its agencies
diffused knowledge. A variety of RWC 2011 seminars and industry
updates were held for tourism businesses and other stakeholders
“to ensure visitor-facing businesses were prepared for RWC 2011
with a focus on business planning that required a long lead time for
implementation” (Auckland Council, 2012, p. 144). This included
the ‘speaker series’ featuring presentations about RWC 2011 from
business leaders (Auckland 2011 Ltd., 2010). The ‘Match Ready for
Business’ programme (Tourism Auckland, 2011, March 25) was
specifically designed for Auckland businesses (Auckland Regional
Steering Group, 2009). Additionally, staff from Auckland Council
and its agencies conducted intensive desktop research about other
international mega-events, and went to observe RWC 2007. Staff
sought to transfer all information and knowledge gained to other
Auckland organisations through meetings, workstreams, seminars,
industry updates, emails, and telephone conversations. Similarly,
the local councils also played a significant role for KT in the RTO
network. One RTO stated: “We are also learning about the way the
councils function, and what different department of the council
does what etc.”
Regulation system. The regulation system also provided a KT
channel through the Major Events Management Act 2007 (MEMA).
The Ministry of Economic Development (MED) published the Guide
to the Major Events Management Act 2007 (New Zealand Ministry of
Economic Development, n.d.). Auckland Council and its agencies
passed on their knowledge and information about appropriate
business behaviour in the RWC 2011 context (as per the MEMA) to
businesses around Auckland. One interviewee noted, “MEMA provides an outline on how to run a major event like this, sponsorships
and all those kinds of things. So there are always great learnings.”
Similarly, the MEMA requirements were also mentioned by the
RTOs.
Trade systems. Trade systems were not specifically described as a
form of KT in the interviews. However, it was evident that many
surveys, economic reports, forecasts and other research were
conducted or simply distributed by tourism, events and other industry associations. This information was shared among organisations in both the AKL and the RTO network to prepare for the event.
Technological systems. Technological systems (e.g., purchase or
lease of technology) were only briefly mentioned by participants of
the RTO network. During the early preparations, ‘Google docs’ was
used by RTOs to share documents and information. However, this
tool was abandoned because “it was too much administrative effort
and time d so it hasn't been updated and used. It was just too
much.”
5.3.4. Document exchange was an important channel for
knowledge transfer
While this channel appears to be similar to ‘inter-firm exchange’, it refers to the transfer of explicit knowledge that does not
require close collaboration or exchange. Exchanged documents
included internal event reviews from previous events, economic
impact reports, policies, strategic documents, statistics, forecasts,
and official documents and agreements from the IRB and RNZ 2011
(e.g., the Host Union Agreement). All participants perceived that
documents provided an important tool to write down experiences
made and knowledge gained, and to pass them to colleagues,
partners and other stakeholders (tacit-to-explicit and explicit-toexplicit forms of KT). Similarly, documents from previous events
and documents describing generic processes and processes for
major events were also highly regarded.
6. Discussion
The findings demonstrate that TA's tourism network shifted for
RWC 2011 and that TA incorporated new partners from the sports
and events domain with whom only limited relationships had
existed pre-event. While this represented a challenge within the
short event timeframes and strict deadlines, it also provided valuable new opportunities due to the incorporation of different
knowledge, regulatory, and technology regimes (Hjalager et al.,
2008). In addition TA, and the member organisations from both
the AKL and RTO networks, benefitted from a large amount of new
knowledge from international corporations, sporting bodies and
international sponsors, as well as new personnel with international
events experience.
Overall, RWC 2011 provided a significant learning opportunity.
Useful experiences and skills were gained. These included event
management skills, relationship-building and collaboration skills
as well as increased knowledge about other organisations. Participants referred to the usefulness of the new knowledge to attract
and deliver future events as well as improving ‘business as usual’.
As previous studies suggest (Beesley & Chalip, 2011; Davenport &
Prusak, 2000; Toohey & Halbwirth, 2001), it is important to apply
the new knowledge to other contexts (e.g., to other mega-events or
other ‘business as usual’ contexts). The transfer of new information
should lead to the “generation of new knowledge that in turn allows individuals working within a new context to identify new
opportunities relating to products, services, markets, or processes”
(Beesley & Chalip, 2011, p. 329). Given that RWC 2011 generated a
lot of knowledge for ‘business as usual’ processes, the probability of
successful adoption elsewhere is high.
The findings also demonstrate that participants learned in a
wide variety of ways. ‘Learning by doing’ was one of the most
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
common learning mechanisms. This is an explicit-to-tacit form
(internalisation) of knowledge conversion (Nonaka, 1994) where
individuals internalise knowledge from documents into their own
experience (Skyrme, 2011). Learning through exchange, from other
events and through prohibitions (i.e., by finding out what was not
permitted to do under the MEMA) was also prevalent. Participants
from the Auckland region also learned from recently recruited
employees with prior mega-event experiences. On this basis, ‘labour mobility’ was recognised as an important mechanism for
learning (Weidenfeld et al., 2010).
Interestingly, all participants pointed to the limited learning
opportunities from RWC 2011 in the tourism field. The participants
highlighted that ‘RWC 2011 tourists’ were similar to ‘normal tourists’ that come to NZ throughout the year. ‘RWC 2011 tourists’ did
not just want to spend their time in the stadia watching rugby
matches but were very interested in visiting NZ's tourist attractions
and sights. These impressions were confirmed in a recent study by
the Ministry of Economic Development (New Zealand Major
Events, 2013), and are in contrast to previous research suggesting
that event visitors are less interested in visiting sights or other
‘must do’ activities than are ordinary leisure tourists (e.g., Preub,
Seguin, & O'Reilly, 2007). The event did thus not require major
changes to the normal, everyday processes for tourism businesses
and only led to limited learning opportunities in the tourism field.
The findings indicate that the RTOs learned more from organisations within their region and from the national organising
bodies than they did from other RTOs. The RTOs collaborated very
closely with organisations within their region (e.g., council, local
rugby unions, economic development agencies) and learned from
them. They also referred to the RWC 2011 organising bodies (e.g.,
RNZ 2011) as an important knowledge source. However, only
limited knowledge was passed on among the RTOs. The structure
and set-up of RWC 2011 in NZ played an important role in this
context. For RWC 2011, the RTOs were often just one of many
members of a regional coordination group. These coordination
groups were tasked with organising the relevant parts of RWC
2011 for their regions. The relationships within the regions among
the group members strengthened because of the event and they
shared valuable information and knowledge. The members of the
coordination groups also connected with national bodies (i.e., RNZ
2011, Tourism New Zealand) and shared information and knowledge with them. On the other hand, the connection to other RTOs
was limited and the event did not facilitate KT among them. As
such, the structure of RWC 2011 in NZ highly impacted on KT
processes. This finding again highlights the close inter-relatedness
between collaboration and KT, as already noted in previous studies
(e.g., Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Inkpen, 1996; Inkpen & Tsang,
2005).
Overall, the findings demonstrate that no systematic, strategic
IKM approach was in place in the AKL and RTO networks for RWC
2011. In the AKL network, leading organisations (e.g., the Auckland
Council) took part in KM initiatives such as the ‘Play of Cities forum’
to learn from other cities and to transfer information and knowledge to future hosts. However, there was no strategic approach to
systematically ‘tap’ into the vast amount of information and
knowledge sources and to leverage the knowledge opportunities
provided by RWC 2011. While an aspiration to learn new skills and
experiences existed, specific IKM programmes and/or technological
systems did not accompany this. Similarly, while the RTOs shared
ideas and experiences, no strategic IKM approach existed in the
RTO network. A more strategic, systematic IKM approach, accompanied by technology would have provided further opportunities
for information and knowledge acquisition and sharing around
RWC 2011. Previous research demonstrates how beneficial (I)KM
programmes can be in the mega-events context (Halbwirth &
183
Toohey, 2001; Toohey & Halbwirth, 2001). This should be considered for future mega-events in NZ.
The findings also confirmed that all four modes of knowledge
creation, as described by Nonaka (1994), were evident in the RWC
2011 context: socialisation, externalisation, combination and
internalisation. Knowledge was created and transferred in a dynamic interaction between the different modes of knowledge
conversion (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000). Given the nature of
a mega-event (with a well-defined end), it is, however, questionable whether the knowledge does move as a spiral (as suggested by
Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000). Understanding the influence of
the time-bound nature of events on KT is an opportunity for future
research.
The KT channels at the firm level were most important. This is
consistent with earlier research. Hall and Williams (2008) and
Hjalager (2002) point to the relative ease of imitating partners and
competitors in the tourism industry. Furthermore, the tourism
destination is an amalgam of individual operators who need to
collaborate to provide a positive total tourist experience (Murphy,
Pritchard, & Smith, 2000). It is therefore not surprising that these
two channels play an essential role in the given context. The
infrastructural and regulation systems were important for KT. The
findings demonstrate the importance of public sector organisations
for KT (Hall & Williams, 2008; Hjalager, 2002; Weidenfeld et al.,
2010). In the AKL network, the Auckland Council and its agencies
engaged in an extensive knowledge acquisition process. The AKL
network interviewees referred frequently to these public sector
organisations as the organisations they learned the most from
during RWC 2011. Similarly, the RTOs in the inter-regional network
also emphasised the role of their own regional councils as important channels of KT. The infrastructural system was thus a very
important channel for KT in both networks. Participants from both
networks also referred to the regulation system as an important
source of knowledge. Through the MEMA the participants learned
about prohibitions and restrictions in the RWC 2011 context, and
shared this knowledge with their partners and stakeholders.
Hence, these regulations contain “a substantial bulk of knowledge
… rapidly diffused to potential users” (Hjalager, 2002, pp.
472e473). Finally, it was evident that document exchange was as a
highly important KT channel in both networks. Documents
included internal event reviews from previous events, economic
impact reports, policies, strategic documents, statistics, forecasts,
and official documents and agreements from the IRB and RNZ 2011
(e.g., the Host Union Agreement).
All findings underpin our adaptation of Weidenfeld et al.'s
(2010) model of KT to reflect the mega-events context. The new
model is presented in Fig. 3.
Within the model, information is acquired through external and
internal sources, and through new and existing relationships.
Through applied reasoning and thinking (Beesley & Chalip, 2011)
this information generates relevant tacit and explicit knowledge
which is transferred (Cooper, 2006; Weidenfeld et al., 2010). Individual and firm-level channels and systems are all evident. At the
individual level, international events experts d hired specifically
for the event d act as knowledge brokers and also represent some
form of labour mobility (given that they often relocate from overseas). At the firm level, imitation/demonstration/observation, interfirm collaboration and document exchange serve as important
channels and mechanisms of KT. The model represents these
channels as closely inter-related, yet they can still be distinguished
from each other. Imitation/demonstration/observation mostly refers to tacit knowledge being transferred in an often unplanned or
uncoordinated manner during which the other party does not
necessarily need to be actively involved. Inter-firm collaboration
involves the planned transfer of mostly tacit forms of knowledge in
184
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
Fig. 3. Knowledge transfer processes in a mega-events context.
Note. Own illustration based on Weidenfeld et al. (2010), p. 607.
a process in which both parties actively interact with each other.
Finally, document exchange mainly refers to explicit knowledge
being transferred in a process that does not necessarily need close
collaboration.
The most important systems in the mega-events context
referred to the infrastructural system (with Auckland Council and
other regional councils and public sector organisations being
important agents of KT) and the regulation system (through the
MEMA). Technological systems and trade systems were used, but
were less important. As described by Weidenfeld et al. (2010), the
KT process creates stocks of knowledge embedded within an
organisation that help create a reservoir of tacit and explicit
knowledge. This is useful not only for ‘business as usual’ processes
but also for future mega-events. The additional knowledge stocks
may also indirectly inform the innovation process, and will to
varying degrees stimulate and shape future learning. This, however,
depends on the absorptive and adaptive capacity of the organisation. It is important to note that the findings of this study particularly sought to identify knowledge sources and channels; the
potential future use of this knowledge and the ability of the
organisation to do so (i.e., the absorptive/adaptive capacity) lie
outside the scope of the study.
In contrast to Weidenfeld et al.’s (2010) model d which was
designed for tourism and attractions d the model depicted in Fig. 3
incorporates the IKM concept and the acquisition and sharing of
information as an essential first step (Skyrme, 2011; Swan et al.,
2000). Only through reasoning and thinking can this information
generate tacit and explicit knowledge (Beesley & Chalip, 2011). The
new model also demonstrates the importance of external and internal sources, and both new and existing relationships, as
knowledge sources. The model particularly emphasises the firm
level with three KT channels: imitation/demonstration/observation, inter-firm collaboration (renamed from ‘inter-firm exchange’
to emphasise the collaborative aspects), and document exchange. It
also adapts the relevant systems: the infrastructural and the
regulation system were particularly prevalent while other systems
(technological and trade systems) played a minor role. The individual level is made up by international events experts relocating to
the host country/city to disseminate their events knowledge (thus
combining the original channels ‘knowledge brokers’ and ‘labour
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
mobility’). Finally, the new model refers to the determinants of
absorptive capacity (Cooper, 2006; Scott et al., 2008), such as size,
internal structure, division of labour, leadership, competency profile and the organisational culture of the receiving organisation.
Previous studies note that the understanding of the organisational
environment and culture as well as the changing strategic objectives are highly important for successful IKM implementation
(Halbwirth & Toohey, 2001).
7. Conclusion
The research demonstrates the significant opportunities for a
mega-event to facilitate knowledge acquisition and transfer among
organisations in regional tourism networks. Through the event,
valuable skills and experiences were acquired by the organisations
which augurs well for effective knowledge assimilation (Cooper,
2006). The additional knowledge stocks may also indirectly
inform the innovation process, and will to varying degrees stimulate and shape future learning. In addition, the new skills and experiences are also valuable to streamline and optimise everyday
operational processes and to attract and deliver future events in
New Zealand.
However, the findings also highlight the need to strategically
leverage these opportunities ex ante. KT processes in the RWC 2011
context were not strategically planned and happened spontaneously. There is an increasing need to implement a more systematic
IKM approach for future mega-events in NZ to leverage the
knowledge opportunities provided. Knowledge is arguably the
most important asset of an organisation (Singh & Hu, 2008) and the
driver for innovation and competitiveness (Hall & Williams, 2008;
Shaw & Williams, 2009). If destinations are to benefit from the
hosting of mega-events, strategic IKM approaches between
participant organisations during the planning and execution of an
event are essential. This study has revealed some of the mechanisms by which knowledge creation and transfer can occur.
Appendix. Indicative interview questions pre- and post-event
Pre-event:
▪ Do you see your relationship with other organisations in Auckland/with the other RTOs as an opportunity to learn and share
knowledge?
▪ In which areas do you think you can learn from the other organisations/the other RTOs?
▪ Do you think that the current structure and environment of the
AKL network/of the RTO network encourages knowledge
transfer, i.e., do you see shared visions and collective goals
among the partners that can facilitate the knowledge transfer
process?
▪ What kind of skills/information/knowledge do you think is/are
transferred among organisations in Auckland/among the RTOs
for RWC 2011?
▪ How do you think is/are new skills/information/knowledge
being transferred?
▪ How would you describe your organisation's ability to learn and
to absorb skills/information/knowledge?
▪ Do you think that this ability will improve because of RWC 2011
and the collaboration with other organisations in Auckland/
among the RTOs? If so, why?
▪ What is the most important piece of knowledge you gained as
an organisation so far?
▪ What is the most important piece of knowledge you gained as
part of the AKL network/RTO network so far?
▪ What do you still expect to learn in the RWC 2011 context?
185
▪ Do you think that the knowledge gained while preparing RWC
2011 will be helpful for future mega events in NZ (e.g., Cricket
World Cup)? If so/not, please explain why.
▪ Please summarise the knowledge transfer process in the Auckland region/among the RTOs in one sentence.
Post-event:
▪ In which area did you learn the most for RWC 2011?
▪ How did you learn?
▪ How was knowledge transferred? Which channels/mediums
were used to transfer knowledge?
▪ Do you think that the knowledge acquired for RWC 2011 will
assist you in the future in other contexts?
▪ Did you learn from other organisations in Auckland/other RTOs?
What did you learn from them?
▪ Did you gain more knowledge from existing relationships or
from new relationships?
▪ Did you gain more knowledge from close relationships or from
organisations you didn't deal with much/never beforehand?
▪ From which organisation do you think you learned the most?
▪ Please summarise the knowledge transfer process in the Auckland region/among the RTOs in one sentence.
▪ From a knowledge management perspective: Is there anything
in particular you would do differently to leverage mega-events
in the future? What is it?
References
Allen, J., O'Toole, W., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (2011). Festival and special event
management (5th ed.). Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Assundani, R. H. (2005). Catching the chameleon: understanding the elusive term
“knowledge”. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 31e44.
Auckland 2011 Ltd. (2010). Speakers. Retrieved December 26, 2010, from http://
www.auckland2011.com/business/Speaker-Series/Speakers.aspx.
Auckland Council. (2012). Rugby World Cup 2011: Evaluation report. Retrieved March
12, 2012, from http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/
ourauckland/news/Rugby%20World%20Cup%202011%20Evaluation%20report.
pdf.
Auckland Regional Steering Group. (2009). Your guide to business opportunities
around Rugby World Cup 2011. Auckland, New Zealand.
Awad, E., & Ghaziri, H. (2004). Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Baggio, R., & Antonioli Corigliano, M. (2010). Tourism destinations: a network
analysis of the web space. In M. Kozak, J. Gnoth, & L. Andreu (Eds.), Advances in
tourism destination marketing: Managing networks (pp. 125e137). London:
Routledge.
Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Network science: a review focused on
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 802e827.
Balduck, A., Maes, M., & Buelens, M. (2011). The social impact of the Tour de France:
comparisons of residents' pre- and post-event perceptions. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 11(2), 91e113.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz,
global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human
Geography, 28(1), 31e56.
Beesley, L. G., & Chalip, L. (2011). Seeking (and not seeking) to leverage mega-sport
events in non-host destinations: the case of Shanghai and the Beijing Olympics.
Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16(4), 323e344.
Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 392e415.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks
and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
47(6), 795e817.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77e101.
Brauner, E., & Becker, A. (2006). Beyond knowledge sharing: the management of
transactive knowledge systems. Journal of Knowledge and Process Management,
13(1), 62e71.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 97e116.
Clark, S., & Scott, N. (2006). Managing knowledge in tourism planning: and how to
assess your capability. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 7(1/
2), 117e136.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128e152.
186
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
33(1), 47e64.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage
what they know (Paperback Ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davila, T. M., Epstein, J., & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work: How to
manage it, measure it, and profit from it. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School
Publishing.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562e580.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. (2002). Knowledge-based view: a new theory of
strategy? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of
strategy & management (pp. 139e164) London: Sage Publications.
da Fontoura Costa, L., & Baggio, R. (2009). The web of connections between tourism
companies: structure and dynamics. Physica A, 388(19), 4286e4296.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,
71(4), 78e91.
Geisler, E., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2009). Principles of knowledge management:
Theory, practice, and cases. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Gibson, L., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. M. (2005). The local destination tourism
network: development issues. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development,
2(2), 87e99.
Grant, R. M. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for
management practice. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 450e454.
Halbwirth, S., & Toohey, K. (2001). The Olympic Games and knowledge management: a case study of the Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic Games.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 1(2), 91e111.
Halcomb, E. J., & Davidson, P. M. (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data
always necessary? Applied Nursing Research, 19(1), 38e42.
Hall, C. M., & Williams, A. (2008). Tourism and innovation. London: Routledge.
Higham, J. (1999). Commentary: sport as an avenue of tourism development: an
analysis of the positive and negative impacts of sport tourism. Current Issues in
Tourism, 2(1), 82e90.
Hjalager, A. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23(5), 465e474.
€ (2008).
€rk, P., Nordin, S., Flagestad, A., & Knútsson, O.
Hjalager, A., Huijbens, E. H., Bjo
Innovation systems in Nordic tourism. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Innovation Centre.
Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 31(1), 123e140.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. (2005). Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146e165.
International Rugby Board. (2012). RWCL welcomes RNZ 2011 financial results.
Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/
newsid¼2062338.html.
Jones, C. (2001). Mega-events and host-region impacts: determining the true worth
of the 1999 Rugby World Cup. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3,
241e251.
Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., & Pitts, R. A. (1997). Building cooperative advantage: managing
strategic alliances to promote organizational learning. Journal of World Business,
32(3), 203e223.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
McLeod, T., Vaughan, D. R., & Edwards, J. (2010). Knowledge networks in the
tourism sector of the Bournemouth, Poole, and Christchurch conurbation:
preliminary analysis. The Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1651e1667.
Morse, J. (2001). The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games: how the Australian Tourist
Commission leveraged The Games for tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
7(2), 101e107.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its
impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43e52.
New Zealand Major Events. (2012). The Major Events Management Act 2007.
Retrieved May 6, 2012, from http://www.med.govt.nz/majorevents/eventsresource-bank/the-major-events-management-act-2007.
New Zealand Major Events. (2013). Rugby World Cup 2011: A tourism perspective.
Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.med.govt.nz/majorevents/newzealand-major-events/rugby-world-cup-2011.
New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. (2012). The stadium
of four million: Rugby World Cup 2011: The New Zealand experience. Wellington,
New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.
New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. (n.d.). Guide for businesses to the
Major Events Management Act. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://www.
tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/rugby-world-cup-2011/rwc-2011news/guide-for-businesses-to-the-major-events-management-act/.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6),
96e104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14e37.
Nonaka, I. (1996). The knowledge-creating company. In K. Starkey (Ed.), How organizations learn (pp. 1e9). London: ITP.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model
of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5e34.
O'Brien, D. (2006). Strategic business leveraging and the Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(4), 309e329.
Ohmann, S., Jones, I., & Wilkes, K. (2006). The perceived social impacts of the 2006
Football World Cup on Munich residents. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2),
129e152.
ONE News. (2011, October 21). World Cup ‘very patchy’ for NZ tourism industry.
Retrieved May 6, 2012, from http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/world-cup-verypatchy-nz-tourism-industry-4478734.
Parent, M., Rouillard, C., & Leopkey, B. (2011). Issues and strategies pertaining to the
Canadian Governments' coordination efforts in relation to the 2010 Olympic
Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(4), 337e369.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pavlovich, K. (2003). The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination
network: the Waitomo Caves, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 24(2),
203e216.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Preuß, H., Seguin, B., & O'Reilly, N. (2007). Profiling major sport event visitors: the
2002 Commonwealth Games. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(1), 5e23.
RNZ 2011. (2008). Rugby World Cup 2011 & Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd: General
factsheet. Wellington, New Zealand: RNZ 2011.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887e910.
Schlegelmilch, B., & Penz, E. (2002). Knowledge management in marketing. The
Marketing Review, 3(1), 5e19.
Schulenkorf, N. (2010). Bridging the divide: The role of sport events in contributing to
€ttingen, Germany: Sierke
social development between disparate communities. Go
Verlag.
Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analysis and tourism: From theory
to practice. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Scott, N., & Laws, E. (2006). Knowledge sharing in tourism and hospitality. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 7(1), 1e12.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shaw, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Knowledge transfer and management in tourism
organisations. Tourism Management, 30(3), 325e335.
Singh, N., & Hu, C. (2008). Understanding strategic alignment for destination
marketing and the 2004 Athens Olympic Games: implications from extracted
tacit knowledge. Tourism Management, 29(5), 929e939.
Skyrme, D. J. (2011). From information management to knowledge management: Are
you prepared?. Reproduced from the Proceedings of OnLine '97, Learned Information http://www.skyrme.com/kmarticles/on97full.htm.
Standards Australia International. (2003). Interim Australian Standard: Knowledge
management (Vol. AS 5037). Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia
International.
Statistics New Zealand. (2011). Impact of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand's
macro-economic statistics. Retrieved May 6, 2012, from http://www.stats.govt.
nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/NationalAccounts/impact-of-rugbyworld-cup.aspx.
Statistics New Zealand. (2012). New Zealand in Profile: 2012. Retrieved May 6, 2012,
from http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile2012/summary.aspx.
Stokes, R. (2004). A framework for the analysis of events-tourism knowledge networks. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 11(2), 108e122.
Swan, W., Langford, N., Watson, I., & Varey, R. J. (2000). Viewing the corporate
community as a knowledge network. Corporate Communications, 5(2), 97e106.
Toohey, K., & Halbwirth, S. (2001). The Sydney Organising Committee of the Olympic
Games and knowledge management: Learning from experience. Retrieved June 11,
2010, from http://www.sprig.org.uk/seminar2001/toohey.pdf.
Tourism Auckland. (2011, March 25). Free online guide gets businesses “Match Ready”.
Retrieved August 5, 2011, from http://news.aucklandnz.com/index.php/
content_B/?L1¼533&L2¼716&id¼6337.
Tourism Industry Association New Zealand. (2012). Mixed results for tourism from
RWC 2011. Retrieved May 6, 2012, from http://www.tianz.org.nz/main/newsdetail/index.cfm/articleId/1026/.
Tourism New Zealand. (2011). RWC 2011 attracts more overseas visitors. Retrieved
May 6, 2012, from http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/
rugby-world-cup-2011/rwc-2011-news/rwc-2011-attracts-more-overseas-visitors/.
Waesche, H., Dickson, G., & Woll, A. (2013). Quality in regional sports tourism: a
network approach to strategic quality management. Journal of Sport & Tourism,
18(2), 1e17.
Weidenfeld, A., & Hall, C. M. (2014). Tourism in the development of regional and
sectoral innovation systems. In A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. Williams (Eds.), The Wiley
Blackwell Companion to Tourism (pp. 578e588). Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Weidenfeld, A., Williams, A., & Butler, R. W. (2010). Knowledge transfer and innovation among attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 604e626.
Willke, H. (1998). Systemisches Wissensmanagement. Stuttgart, Germany: Lucius &
Lucius.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Ziakas, V., & Costa, C. A. (2010). Explicating inter-organizational linkages of a host
community's events network. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(2), 132e147.
K. Werner et al. / Tourism Management 48 (2015) 174e187
Kim Werner lectures event management in the School of
Hospitality and Tourism at AUT University. Prior to pursuing a career in academia, Kim worked in a variety of
roles in tourism and destination marketing in Germany
and in New Zealand. Kim has an honours degree in International Tourism Management and a doctorate in event
management/destination marketing from AUT University.
Her research interests include mega and major events,
destination marketing, inter-organisational relationships,
and knowledge management.
Geoff Dickson is an Associate Professor in the School of
Sport and Recreation at AUT University and Associate Director of the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute
where he leads the events research program. His research
interests centre on inter-organisational relationships, impacts and legacies of sport events, and ambush marketing.
Geoff has an honours degree in Leisure Management and a
sport management doctorate from Griffith University. He
is a member of the Sports Management Association of
Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ), the North American
Society for Sport Management (NASSM), and the European
Association for Sport Management (EASM).
187
Kenneth F. Hyde is Associate Professor of Marketing at
AUT University, in Auckland, New Zealand. His research
interests include tourist behaviour and decision-making,
and consumer behaviour in services. His research has
been published in a number of leading journals including
Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research, the Journal of Travel Research, Qualitative Market Research, and the
Journal of Business Research.